Mr. Hikind’s awful choice

Our opinion: A state assemblyman’s first mistake is dressing up in blackface; his second is an apology that shows he still doesn’t get it.

There’s a scene in Woody Allen’s classic comedy “Sleeper” that is worth watching. We recommend it to Assemblyman Dov Hikind, or anyone confused about satire, bad taste, political correctness and the bounds of appropriate behavior. It’s a lesson in the use of offensive imagery — how it requires skill, thoughtfulness, sensitivity and a certain degree of personal entitlement.

The movie is set in a futuristic society in which American pop culture, politics, technology and religion are taken to absurd and humorous extremes. The scene involves a party at the home of a clueless, self-centered poet. As the guests file in, it’s clear that they’re as self-absorbed and shallow as their host. It’s all very light save for one jarring image: A guest dressed in a T-shirt emblazoned with a swastika, wearing a scarf that on second glance is actually a Jewish prayer shawl.

In some other movie or in the hands of a different director, this use of Nazi and Jewish imagery might have been utterly offensive. But “Sleeper” pulls it off, for several reasons. Mr. Allen’s Jewishness, of course, gave him some license to use such sacred Jewish garb. The satirical message is also clear — that the wearer is a dilettante who either doesn’t care or doesn’t know how offensive this fashion statement is.

Equally important is what the audience knows is not the message. Mr. Allen is in no way endorsing Nazism or suggesting that perhaps, by 1973, it was time for everyone to get over the Holocaust. He was not making light of a regime that murdered 11 million people, 6 million of them Jews. If anything, that subtle, fleeting moment was a condemnation of our tendency to forget.

Mr. Allen could use such imagery to make a point just as a black comedian might use the “N-word” to call attention to the bigotry implicit in it. The same goes in the case of any number of religions or ethnic groups that have been the target of some form of prejudice: They have a special entitlement to appropriate and mock the images or epithets that have been used to hurt or demand them. With few exceptions, the rest of us do not.

This is the context in which Mr. Hikind is so appropriately excoriated for the blackface costume that the Brooklyn Democrat so inappropriately donned for, of all things, a party for Purim, a Jewish holiday that marks deliverance of a people from near-genocide. His reaction — calling the backlash “political correctness to the absurd,” before he offered an apology that was lame in every respect — suggests he is oblivious and insensitive, at least, to the racist history of blackface and minstrel shows. For more than a century, this distinctly American art form portrayed African-Americans in a derogatory light. It was an ongoing, institutionalized, socially acceptable insult that began when slavery was the law of the land and didn’t end until the civil rights era.

It’s all the more astounding that this display comes from a politician who just recently criticized a fashion designer known for making anti-Semitic comments for dressing up as a Hasidic Jew. Such behavior, he suggested, was mockery.

As was this costume stunt. Even in the best possible light, the message is, “Look at me. I’m pretending to be black. Isn’t that funny?”

6 Responses

What Mr. Hikind did was not “blackface”. He used makeup to make his skin look brown because he wanted to appear as an African American basketball player.

A fairly cursory review of history will provide evidence that, within the context of costuming, coloring your skin to appear African American is not blackface. To my mind, it is not even close. Moreover, his intention was not racist.

This was an exaggerated and wrong headed response to something that was done innocently. Clearly, there are still issues of race to be dealt with. To my mind, the undeserved uproar and outrage over Mr. Hikind’s costume was an unnecessary and silly distraction.

Just why is this so controversial? Because the MEDIA and a few other hyper sensitive folks say it is? What a sad world we live in. People portray something they are not, all the time. Plays, skits, t.v. shows, movies, etc etc. the man meant no offense. Hhe put on some dark makeup and that makes him a racist? Or just what is he now? He didn’t jump around and act like a fool. Why do we allow the parasitic media of today to contnue to use it’s pulpit to drum up controversy? The media more than anything or anyone else creates the great divide in this country. All just to sell a couple more papers? If the media didn’t jump on this and make a story it would hardly be noticed, and would go away in a day.

Many African Americans and others of African decent around the world feel as if there was and to some degree continues to be a near genocide. Many of us come from people who taught us – never again. To stay silent is the real crime.

Simply want to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.